Pages

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

CSGV, Ladd Everitt and Cries of Treason

The CSGV and their Comm. Dir. Ladd Everitt like to throw about the words
'Insurrectionist' and 'Traitor' in practically every post or comment they make. Like a Liberal Arts Major using screamings 'Fascist' and 'Racist' whenever they're losing an argument, Ladd and his cohorts have no idea what those words really mean. Art. 3 Sec. 3 of the COTUS clearly defines what treason is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That's pretty specific isn't it? Anyone w/ a glimmer of intelligence can see that I nor anyone that have been the recipients of Ladd/CSGV's 'Insurrectionist Award' have levied War nor given aid and comfort to our enemies. So why is the COTUS so detailed in this definition? Why let's ask James Madison in writings that Ladd ignores in his effort to subvert the Bill of Rights.

"As
treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of
the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled
and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent
factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked
their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with
great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a
constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for
conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it,
from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its
author." – James Madison, Federalist No. 43, "The Powers
Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered (continued),"
Independent Journal, January 23, 1788; Rossiter pp. 269-270

So basically they knew that wingnuts like Ladd Everitt would start throwing out the charge of 'Traitor' against anything they didn't like, hoping to smear people since they can't win their argument on their own foundations. And just like the Founders felt, we should take claims claims as seriously. In other words, not at all.

One cannot help but wonder if they would have plastered the 'insurrectionist' label on Sophie Scholl and the rest of the White Rose Society.

Would the White Rose Society's efforts be any less just had they used knives instead of words? (They obviously couldn't use guns and maintain the moral high ground, since ANY use of a gun is evil in and of itself, and a knife doesn't meet the 'gun death' metric.)